Stocktaking of climate risk assessment approaches related to loss and damage Laura Schäfer & Kehinde Balogun

October 2015

UNU-EHS Working Paper No. 20

This publication is part of a set of two working papers that resulted from a collaboration between United Nations

University Institute of Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). UNU-EHS publishes these papers as part of its UNU-EHS Working Paper series.

We thankfully acknowledge that this work was financed and inspired by the Global Programme on Risk Assessment and

Management for Adaptation to Climate Change, implemented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

(BMZ).

Disclaimer:

The analysis, results and recommendations in this paper only represent the opinion of the authors and are not necessarily

representative of the position of the United Nations University, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH or the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

Series title: Loss and damage associated with impacts of climate change

Paper title: Stocktaking of climate risk assessment approaches related to loss and damage

Authors: Schäfer, L. and Balogun, K.

Publication date: October 2015

This paper should be cited as:

Schäfer, L. and Balogun, K. (2015). Stocktaking of climate risk assessment approaches related to loss and damage. UNU-

EHS Working Paper, No. 20. Bonn: United Nations University Institute of Environment and Human Security.

P a g e | 1

Stocktaking of climate risk assessment approaches related to loss and damage

By Laura Schäfer and Kehinde Balogun (UNU-EHS) in cooperation with the

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

E-mail: schaefer@ehs.unu.edu | balogun@ehs.unu.edu

February 2015

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Structure of the paper ......................................................................................................................... 3

2. Theoretical background - risk assessment beyond the limits of adaptation ...................................... 4

Theoretical remarks regarding the concept of loss and damage ........................................................ 4

The challenging task of assessing the risk of loss and damage ........................................................... 7

3. Stocktaking - Existing climate risk assessment approaches to address loss and damage .................. 8

Disaster risk reduction ......................................................................................................................... 9

Climate change adaptation ............................................................................................................... 13

4. Gap analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Assessment of non- economic losses ................................................................................................ 15

Assessment of slow-onset changes ................................................................................................... 15

Determining the limits to adaptation ................................................................................................ 15

Overall trends .................................................................................................................................... 16

Lack of information ........................................................................................................................... 16

5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 16

6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix: Stocktaking of climate risk assessment approaches ............................................................ 23

A.1 Disaster risk reduction ................................................................................................................ 24

A.2 Climate Change Adaptation ........................................................................................................ 27

P a g e | 2

1. Introduction Loss and damage is already being experienced

around the globe by both developing and

developed countries. Existing mitigation

commitments and actions will not prevent

dangerous climate change related impacts.

Historical greenhouse gas emissions and

locked in investments into fossil fuel industries

have already committed us to a certain level

of climate related loss and damage (Kreft

2013). Moreover, not all climate change

impacts can be successfully adapted to, be it

due to financial, technical, physical or social

constraints (IPCC 2014; 2012; Adger et al.

2009; Dow et al. 2013; Huggel et al. 2013).

Hence, climate change will lead to economic

and non-economic losses induced by extreme

weather events as well as slow-onset changes.

Taking these limitations of preventing and

managing climate impacts into account it

appears essential to address the residual loss

and damage which cannot be avoided through

mitigation and adaptation efforts, especially

for particularly vulnerable countries to climate

change impacts.

One essential element to address and avoid

loss and damage are effective strategies for

mitigation and adaptation. The other essential

element includes strategies to address

incurred and future loss and damage. For this

second element, the assessment of risks of

loss and damage due to climate change is a

crucial pre-condition. However, a

comprehensive loss and damage risk

assessment methodology has not yet been

developed. Approaches, tools and instruments

that could assist in assessing the risk of loss

and damage can be found within two major

frameworks: Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA). A range

of approaches has been developed within

these frameworks, from quantitative to

qualitative assessments, spanning both pre-

and post-disaster assessments as well as more

holistic approaches.

This paper will take a detailed look at

approaches to assess the risk of loss and

damage in the following fields:

(a) Loss and damage risk assessments within

DRR

(b) Loss and damage risk assessments within

CCA

(c) Comprehensive risk assessment methods

within DRR

This discussion paper does not provide an

exhaustive and complete analysis of all

existing approaches, but rather an overview of

the most relevant ones. Drawing on existing

work, the purpose of this paper is to:

(a) Provide an overview and analysis of

existing approaches, tools and

instruments for assessing the risk of loss

and damage;

(b) Identify gaps in the approaches, tools, and

instruments in relation to their

effectiveness to assess risk of loss and

damage;

(c) Give suggestions regarding risk

assessment approaches that could be

further enhanced to address loss and

damage.

Methods

The main purpose of this paper is to provide

an overview of existing approaches to assess

the risk of loss and damage within the two

fields of DRR and CCA on the basis of an

assessment of current literature and critical

analysis. The following method was employed

for the stocktaking:

Firstly, recent overviews and compendiums

were acknowledged, including the technical

paper on "Current knowledge on relevant

methodologies and data requirements as well

as lessons learned and gaps identified at

different levels, in assessing the risk of loss

and damage associated with the adverse

P a g e | 3

effects of climate change" (UNFCCC 2012a,

also UNFCCC 2012b, c, e) and the

"Compendium on methods and tools to

evaluate impacts of, vulnerability and

adaptation to climate change" (UNFCCC 2004).

The UNFCCC (2010) "Overview from the

Nairobi Work Programme on impacts,

vulnerability and adaptation to climate

change" and its sources were also analysed.

Additionally, sector specific overviews were

taken into account, for example the summary

of "Methods for the evaluation of direct and

indirect flood losses" by Thieken et al. (2008).

Secondly, platforms like Adaptation

Community (www.adaptationcommunity.net),

Climate Planning (www.climateplanning.org)

or the Knowledge Navigator

(www.knowledgenavigator.net) were

reviewed for relevant approaches.

Thirdly, a key words search was done to

gather important approaches in the literature,

using the sciencedirect.com database.

The literature reviewed included:

(a) Peer-reviewed journals in English,

using keyword searches;

(b) Practitioner and policy-related

literature, using keyword searches;

The keywords searched for include (but are

not limited to): loss and damage risk

assessment, risk assessment, climate risk

assessment, adaptation assessment, disaster

risk assessment and vulnerability assessment.

Owing to time constraints, a more

comprehensive review of all journals, reports,

books and other sources in all relevant

languages was not possible, which limits the

scope of the analysis.

Fourthly, steps 1-3 above identified over 300

approaches, tools and instruments which

were analysed regarding their relevance and

applicability with regard to loss and damage

risk assessment. Following criteria were used:

(a) The accessibility of information including

tools and instruments; (b) The consideration

of climate change impacts within the

approach. Over 100 approaches met the

criteria; though due to the scope of this paper

only 20 approaches were analysis. The

selection is balanced regarding scope of the

approaches (global, national, local) and their

authors (governments, development banks,

civil society etc.).

The approaches are categorized as follows:

1. Disaster risk reduction 2. Climate change

adaptation

1.1 Comprehensive

impact and risk

assessment

2.1 Vulnerability

assessment

1.2 Pre-disaster risk

assessment

2.2 Climate change

adaptation assessment

1.3 Post-disaster risk

assessment

The results of the analysis are clearly arranged

in a table (see Annex 1). It should be noted

that there is limited case study literature on

the practicability of these assessments; this

paper does not contain the implementation

processes. Furthermore, the approaches, tools

and instruments to assess the risk of loss and

damage listed in this stocktaking exercise are

not exhaustive, other approaches may exist.

Structure of the paper

The paper is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 provides a theoretical

introduction to the concept of loss and

damage as well as an analysis of

challenges regarding loss and damage risk

assessment, thereby setting the basics for

the subsequent analysis.

P a g e | 4

Chapter 3 embraces analyses of

advantages and disadvantages of

identified approaches, instruments and

tools regarding their applicability for loss

and damage risk assessment, using the

above five clusters as structure.

Chapter 4 investigates gaps within the

approaches, instruments and tools

identified in chapter 3 describing five

major gaps in detail.

Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and

gives recommendations regarding

approaches worth further exploration

regarding the development of a

comprehensive loss and damage risk

assessment.

2. Theoretical background - risk

assessment beyond the limits of

adaptation

Theoretical remarks regarding the

concept of loss and damage

With mitigation and adaptation, the 1992 UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) enfolded two tiers of negotiations,

representing a twofold approach to tackle

climate change and its impacts. However, that

has not been the case ever since. Until the

mid-2000s, UNFCCC decisions focused on

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as well

as emissions from land-use change and

forestry. When awareness rose that the low

ambition level of emission reduction will not

lead to a successful prevention of climate

change, the adaptation to the impacts of

climate change was acknowledged as essential

complement to mitigation, making adaptation

an equally important negotiation tier (Warner

& Zakieldeen 2012). The UNFCCC and its Kyoto

Protocol as main treaties of the international

climate regime now contain obligations for all

parties to mitigate climate change and adapt

to the impact of climate change, moreover for

Annex II parties to assist technically and

financially with adaptation and mitigation.

Summing it up, the approach so far has been

to “prevent if possible and manage impacts

through adaptation” (Verheyen 2012).

However, as previously stated, current locked

investment in fossil fuel and inadequate

mitigation ambitions will result in unavoidable

losses induced by extreme weather events as

well as slow-onset processes. Taking these

limitations of preventing and managing

climate impacts into account, it is essential to

address the residual loss and damage which

cannot be avoided through mitigation and

adaptation efforts, particularly for countries

vulnerable to climate change impacts (Warner

& van der Geest 2013).

Loss and damage refers to the adverse or

residual impacts of climate change that take

place in spite of adaptation, mitigation,

disaster risk reduction and other measures

that may have been taken to prevent or

reduce the effects. With the topic being new

and debates still going on, a widely shared

definition of climate-related loss and damage

does not exist yet. “Damage” on the one hand,

which can be put on a level with tort,

describes harming climate change impacts

afflicting a person or entity possible to repair

or rebuild. “Loss”, on the other hand, can be

understood as harming climate change

impacts not possible to repair or rebuild.

These may be economic losses (e.g. loss of

geologic fresh water related to glacial melt)

but also non-economic losses (e.g. loss of

heritage when areas become uninhabitable

for populations). A working definition has

been proposed in 2012 by Warner et al. They

define loss and damage as “the negative

effects of climate variability and climate

change that people have not been able to

cope with or adapt to". This definition is used

in this paper to guide the conceptualization of

loss and damage.

P a g e | 5

Box 1: Losses from slow-onset changes

Sea level rise

loss of territory and productive land

salinization of soils leading both to a loss of ability to produce food and loss of freshwater for drinking

loss of critical marine ecosystems for food production due to the loss of mangroves and coral reefs which serve as fish nurseries and habitats

damage to coastal infrastructure, protective barriers and resources important for coastal based tourist economies

Increasing temperatures

loss of productive land (soil moisture)

lost areas for human habitation as temperature extremes become too dangerous for human and animal life

damage to yields, food production, and farmer livelihoods Ocean acidification

loss of fisheries resources

loss of shell-forming species, coral reefs and reef-dependent fisheries affects food security, trade and tourism

loss and/or damage of coral reef ecosystems which will lead to greater storm impacts and damage to tourist economies

loss of livelihoods based on tourism and fisheries Salinization of croplands and aquifers

loss of productive land

loss of ability to produce food and loss of potable drinking water Land and forest degradation

undermining food production, famine, increased social costs, decline in quantity and quality of fresh water supplies, increased poverty and pol. instability, reduction in the lands resilience to natural climate variability and decreased soil productivity

forest depended populations risk loss of territory and livelihoods as forests burn or are degraded through changes in species composition

Loss of biodiversity

loss of countless species will impoverish our lives (humans are dependent on the natural world for sustenance), damaging ecosystems and threaten the stability of those systems upon which we depend

Desertification

loss of territory

loss of productive land

loss of livelihood options

when productive lands are lost, migration becomes the primary option Sources: IPCC 2012; Hoffmaister & Stabinsky 2012

Loss and damage includes the effects from

"extreme/sudden onset" (e.g. floods) and

"slow-onset" (e.g. melting permafrost)

changes as well as of combination of the two

(e.g. glacial melting leading to glacier lake

outburst floods). An extreme onset event may

be a single, discrete event that occurs rapidly -

in a matter of days or even hours, whereas

slow-onset events is a gradual and

incremental process occurring over many

years or from an increased frequency or

intensity of recurring events (UNFCCC 2012d;

P a g e | 6

Siegele 2012). The Cancun Agreements list sea

level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean

acidification, glacial retreat and related

impacts, salinization, land and forest

degradation, loss of biodiversity and

desertification as slow-onset events. Box 1

provides an overview of anticipated loss and

damage by slow-onset changes.

Three "types" of loss and damage can be

distinguished: avoided loss and damage

(through mitigation and adaptation efforts),

unavoided loss and damage (when mitigation

and adaptation efforts are not enough to

avoid losses and damages) or unavoidable loss

and damage (those losses and damages

resulting from the limitations of human

systems and ecosystems to adapt to the most

of slow-onset processes or extreme events)

(Verheyen 2012).

Loss and damage can be economic in nature

as in lost income or damage to property and

assets, which are included in formal

accounting processes or non‐economic, which

include, for example, cultural and social

impacts of climate change, loss of biodiversity

and ecosystem services. Non-economic losses

are difficult to measure and (therefore) not

included in formal accounting processes

(Morissey & Oliver‐Smith 2013). Both

economic and non-economic loss and damage

can be direct (mostly visible damage) or

indirect (effects of damages on e.g. the

economy of a country) and can take tangible

(material, goods) or intangible (non-material

pertaining to goods like land and resources

and services like social networks, culturally

significant symbol) forms (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Economic and non-economic losses

Source: Morrissey & Oliver-Smith 2013

P a g e | 7

The challenging task of assessing the

risk of loss and damage

Assessing the risk of loss and damage from

climate related disasters should aim at

identifying current and future human,

economic, social and environmental loss and

damage caused by climate disasters.

According to ISO 31010, risk assessment is the

overall process of risk identification, risk

analysis, and risk evaluation. Risk assessment

is a component of a more general process

which furthermore identifies the abilities and

resources available to reduce the identified

levels of risk, or the possible effects of a

disaster (capacity analysis), and considers the

planning of appropriate risk mitigation

measures (capability planning), the monitoring

and review of hazards, risks, and

vulnerabilities (EU 2010)

A variety of tools and methods to assess the

risk of loss and damage can be found within

two major frameworks: Disaster Risk

Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change

Adaptation (CCA). A range of approaches has

been developed within these frameworks,

from quantitative to qualitative assessments,

spanning both pre- and post-disaster

assessments. However, a comprehensive

methodology to assess the risk of loss and

damage has not yet been developed. Due to

the following major challenges, the

development of such a comprehensive loss

and damage risk assessment methodology

presents a difficult task:

(a) Putting a value to loss and damage

Putting a value to loss and damage is more

complex than it may seem to be at a first

examination. Valuation of direct losses is

indeed facilitated by their monetization in

market prices. Money is used as means of

representing the relative values that society

places on different resources and as

conversion mechanism of material value into

money and vice versa (Wrathall et al. in press).

However, there are also losses where this

method is not appropriate, especially when it

comes to personal value that people assign to

things and places which can hardly be

captured by market prices. To identify their

value, several methods are available (e.g.

contingent valuation, asking people regarding

their willingness to pay for the things we want

to assess the value of (Adams 1996 in Wrathall

et al. in press). The quantification of these

non-economic losses poses conceptual, ethical

and empirical challenges. Even more

problematic to measure are cultural

resources, as they are dynamic and therefore

contain multiple values

(b) Identifying the thin line between

adaptation and loss and damage

The risk of loss and damage is directly related

to climate change adaptation, which has the

potential to prevent loss and damage to a

certain limit. Determining the limit of

adaptation, however, is a challenging process,

the line between adaptation and loss and

damage being a thin one.

With their differentiation between acceptable,

tolerable and intolerable risk from climate

change, Dow and Berkhout (2014) provide a

possibility to approach the thin line between

adaptation and loss and damage. While

acceptable risks are deemed so low that

additional risk reduction efforts (adaptation)

are not seen as necessary, tolerable risks

relate to activities seen as worth pursuing for

their benefits but where additional efforts

(adaptation) are required. Intolerable risks are

those which exceed a socially negotiated norm

(e.g. frequency of flooding) or a value despite

adaptive action (Dow & Berkhout 2014). They

highlight that defining the limit between

tolerable (adaptation) and intolerable (loss

and damage) risk is an ethical issue "because

the aim of adaptation is to protect what we

value" (ibid) - which is significantly different

within and cross border societies.

P a g e | 8

Some adaption limits have been clearly

identified, mainly those related to ecological,

physical, economic and technological

constraints (IPCC 2014, 2007). Recent research

however dismantled that adaptation also

depends on "social values about what we

deem important in society and how we ought

to allocate resources" (Adger et al. 2009).

Values are hence translated into action

through rules and institutions for governing

risk (Adger et al. 2005; O’Brien 2009; Dow et

al. 2013). The limits to adaptation and the

impacts that result by exceeding them are

therefore ‘endogenous’, emerging from within

society reflecting goals values and social

choice, being subjective and constructed.

(Adger et al. 2009; Dow et al. 2013; Huggel et

al. 2013). This is an important point as it

highlights that in a lot of cases adaptation is

not limited by exogenous factors but by

values, perceptions, processes and power

structures within society and may vary

significantly across societies (Adger et al.

2009). Ultimately, assessing the risk of loss

and damage will require implementing

approach(es) that understands stakeholders

and societal values, perceptions, process at all

levels of society - regional, national and local

level.

(c) Assessing different types of loss and

damage

As described above, loss and damage is

induced through both, extreme weather

events and slow-onset changes. Existing

approaches to assess risks in the area of

disaster risk management use historical date

to calculate future risk, thereby considering a

certain scale of disasters according to existing

circumstances. Climate change, however, will

provoke changes in circumstances and hence

changes in the scope of disasters in the future.

So far, no methods are available to adequately

reflect this process.

3. Stocktaking - Existing climate

risk assessment approaches to

address loss and damage

The stocktaking took a detailed look at the

following types of approaches:

(a) Loss and damage risk assessments within

DRR

(b) Loss and damage risk assessments within

CCA

(c) Comprehensive risk assessment methods

within DRR

Based on a desk-top study the approaches are

analysed regarding their advantages and

disadvantages for loss and damage risk

assessment.

The approaches are categorized as follows:

P a g e | 9

3.1 Disaster risk reduction 3.2 Climate change adaptation and vulnerability

assessment

3.1.1 Comprehensive impact and risk assessment

Natural disaster HotSpot

World Risk Index

Global Climate Risk Index

3.2.1 Vulnerability assessment

Climate Vulnerability Monitor

Participatory Vulnerability and capacity assessment (part of Participatory Assessment of Disaster Risk (PADR)

The vulnerability sourcebook

3.1.2 Pre-disaster risk assessment

Comprehensive Approach for Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CAPRA)

Catastrophe Simulation model (CATSIM)

Handbook for Estimating the Socioeconomic and Environmental Effects of Disasters (also for post-disaster)

Community based disaster risk management (also for post-disaster)

3.2.2 Climate change adaptation assessment

Climate Change Risk Assessment

Climate change and Environmental Degradation Risk and Adaptation Assessment (CEDRA )

Climate Risk Assessment Guide

3.1.3 Post-disaster risk assessment

Disaster Loss Assessment Guidelines

DesInventar

Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA)

Assessing Damage after Disasters: A participatory Framework and Toolkit

Subsequently, the clustered approaches are

briefly introduced and advantages and

disadvantages regarding their application for

loss and damage risk assessment are

explained.

Disaster risk reduction

Comprehensive impact and risk

assessment

The analysis "Natural disaster HotSpot" by

the World Bank assesses the risk of mortality

and economic losses as disaster-related

outcomes, estimating risk levels by combining

hazard exposure with historical vulnerability.

The assessment is adequate for identifying

areas that are at relatively higher single- or

multiple-hazard risk (e.g. areas that are at

higher risk of flood losses than others), as well

as for assessing the exposure and potential

magnitude of losses in the areas. The results

are used to make statements about risk levels

on a global scale, as risks are calculated for

grid cells rather than for countries, the

assessment also allows to estimate risk levels

at sub-national scales. The results, although

on a broad scale, can be used to inform the

prioritization of areas for more localized and

detailed risk assessments. Using detailed

regional data, identified risks can be assessed

further by applying the methodological

framework on regional level. However,

presented data are inadequate for

understanding the absolute levels of risk

posed by any specific hazard or combination

of hazards. The global analysis is moreover

limited by issues of scale as well as by the

P a g e | 10

availability and quality of data. For a number

of hazards, only 15- to 25-year records of

events were available for the entire globe and

relatively crude spatial information for

locating these events. Moreover, data on

historical disaster losses, and particularly on

economic losses, are also limited.

The Global Climate Risk Index, produced by

the German NGO Germanwatch, determines

the risk of becoming the victim of a disaster as

a result of natural hazards for 173 countries

throughout the world. The assessment

exclusively focuses on climate change related

hazards, hence incorporates only weather

related events (storms, floods, temperature

extremes, mass movements) and no

geological factors (e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis)

not depending on the weather therefore not

possibly related to climate change. The

assessment uses four indicators:

1. Number of death;

2. Number of death per 100.000 inhabitants;

3. Sum of losses in US$ in purchasing power

parity (PPP);

4. Losses per unit of GDP. This approach

requires data that is in most cases easily

accessible on the global level.

However, the socio-economic variables in

comparison to damages and death does not

allow for an exact measurement of the

vulnerability but rather an indication of

vulnerability. The index is based on the

average values of included years making it

hard to differentiate between countries

continuously affected by extreme events and

those that only rank high due to exceptional

catastrophes. Moreover, the index does not

allow for an assessment of continuous

changes of important climate parameters that

may have a substantial influence on

development factors (e.g. availability of

water).

The Comprehensive Approach for

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CAPRA)

developed by the World Bank, the Inter-

American Development Bank (IDB) and the

International Strategy of United Nations for

Disaster Reduction (ISDR) is a techno-scientific

methodology and information platform,

composed of tools for the evaluation and

communication of risk at various territorial

levels. This model allows the evaluation of

probabilistic losses on exposed elements using

probabilistic metrics, such as the exceeding

the probability curve of the expected annual

loss and probable maximum loss, useful for

multi-hazard/risk analyses. Using CAPRA it is

possible to design risk transfer instruments,

the evaluation of probabilistic cost-benefit

ratio, providing an innovative tool for decision

makers to analyse the net benefits of the risk

mitigation strategies, such as building

retrofitting. The tool is useful for land use

planning, loss scenarios for emergency

response, early warning, on-line loss

assessment mechanisms, and for the holistic

evaluation of disaster risk based on indicators

that facilitates the integrated risk

management by the different stakeholders

involved in risk reduction decision-making.

However, the tool relies on a combination of

point values some conservative and some

typical yielding a point estimate of exposure

that is at some unknown point in the range.

Moreover it is difficult to incorporate new or

alternate data into the model setup. Especially

the integration of new hazards or damage

algorithms with respect to climate change is a

complex issue.

Pre-disaster assessment

The Comprehensive Approach for

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CAPRA)

developed by the World Bank, the Inter-

American Development Bank (IDB) and the

International Strategy of United Nations for

Disaster Reduction (ISDR) is a techno-scientific

methodology and information platform,

P a g e | 11

composed of tools for the evaluation and

communication of risk at various territorial

levels. This model allows the evaluation of

probabilistic losses on exposed elements using

probabilistic metrics, such as the exceedance

probability curve, expected annual loss and

probable maximum loss, useful for multi-

hazard/risk analyses. Using CAPRA it is

possible to design risk transfer instruments,

the evaluation of probabilistic cost-benefit

ratio, providing an innovative tool for decision

makers to analyse the net benefits of the risk

mitigation strategies, such as building

retrofitting. The tool is useful for land use

planning, loss scenarios for emergency

response, early warning, on-line loss

assessment mechanisms, and for the holistic

evaluation of disaster risk based on indicators

that facilitates the integrated risk

management by the different stakeholders

involved in risk reduction decision-making.

However, the tool relies on a combination of

point values some conservative and some

typical yielding a point estimate of exposure

that is at some unknown point in the range.

Moreover it is difficult to incorporate new or

alternate data into the model setup. Especially

the integration of new hazards or damage

algorithms with respect to climate change is a

complex issue.

The Catastrophe Simulation model (CATSIM)

by the International Institute for Applied

Systems Analysis (IIASA) assesses the costs

and risks of financial vulnerability and analysis

selected ex-ante financial instruments

measures for reducing vulnerability. Thereby,

it supports policymakers, particularly in

developing countries, to devise public

financing strategies to be implemented in

both the pre- and post-disaster context. The

model will then show the best combination of

financial strategies to suit current national

circumstances. To calculate the risks of

damage, CATSIM uses a probability based

approach, the Monte Carlo Simulation

Technique. An online application with an easy-

to-use graphical interface that allows the user

to define parameters for hazards,

vulnerability, and elements exposed.

The Handbook for Estimating the

Socioeconomic and Environmental Effects of

Disasters (also for post-disaster), developed

by Economic Commission for Latin America

and the Caribbean (ECLAC) describes methods

required to assess the social, economic and

environmental effects of disasters, breaking

them down into direct damage and indirect

losses and into overall and macroeconomic

effects. The handbook provides the means to

identify the most affected social, economic

and environmental sectors and geographic

regions, and therefore those that require

priority attention in reconstruction. The

application of the methodology also enables

users to estimate whether there is sufficient

domestic capacity for dealing with

reconstruction tasks, or if international

cooperation is required. The approach used in

the Handbook allows a very high degree of

detail of damage and loss assessment,

although it depends on the availability of

quantitative information in the country or

region affected. This high degree of detail is a

result of the great variety of sectors and sub-

sectors included in the assessment. What

should be particularly highlighted is the social

sector - besides affected population and

damage to housing and human settlement it

offers methods for estimating damage to

education and culture (the sector's

infrastructure, equipment and general

functioning). This way, the Handbook allows

to addresses important aspects of non-

economic losses within the assessment.

The Community based disaster risk

management model by the Asian Disaster

Preparedness Center includes training manual

for the inclusion of local actors in application

of measures in risk analysis, disaster

P a g e | 12

prevention and mitigation and disaster

preparedness. The model offers specific

methods for community based risk, needs and

damage assessment. This interactive

assessment facilitates the involvement of

potentially affected people into the process,

using their experiences regarding "elements at

risk" (people, households and community

facilities and services, livelihood and economic

activities, the natural environment) that

permit the effective determinance of their

vulnerability and hence improves the

estimation of losses on community level.

Outcomes and plans based on this approach

are more sustainable as they are based on a

process of community mobilization and hence

are locally owned. However, the approach

requires a lot of time, especially regarding the

necessary streamlining of the process and the

pre-gathering of available information.

Moreover, results are dependent on good

facilitation skills during the implementation

phase.

Post-disaster assessment

The Disaster Loss Assessment Guidelines by

Emergency Management Australia provide a

detailed description of the process of loss

assessment, and lead the reader through the

steps required to carry out an economic

assessment of disaster losses. The guidelines

help to estimate the average annual damages

from a hazard such as flooding at a specified

location, probably as an input to cost-benefit

analysis and provide a step-by-step

assessment process. Much of the supporting

material is generic and can be applied to all

hazards. Although this document sets out the

steps to be followed in making a real loss

assessment, the process is complex and

requires some specialist expertise.

DesInventar is a system which inventories

disasters, developed by Corporacion OSSO, LA

RED and UNISDR. It is methodology allows

registering information about the

characteristics and effects of diverse types of

disasters, focusing on disasters at regional or

national scale. This procedure enables a look

at the accumulation of these types of disasters

from a national and regional perspective, both

in retrospective and prospective. The tool

allows to show the reaches a detonation

factor (event) can have and the disasters it

may generate, on one or more geographic

units of minimum resolution (municipal or

equivalent in Latin America), making easier

the count of the possible variables around the

affected region from a space/time perspective

and to obtain statistics on how losses affect

human lives, economy, culture, historic

patrimony, physical infrastructure, etc.

Climate change factors may be easily

incorporated into the assessment as within

DesInventar disasters are considered as all

losses stemming from impacts of phenomena

with are natural, technological or

anthropological in origin. Although focusing

on economic effects on disasters, DesInventar

also perceives socio-cultural effects as

important ones to be assessed, focussing on

cultural infrastructure (e.g. religious buildings

and monuments, architectural or cultural

heritage buildings). However, the system

proofed to be unreliable for estimation of

natural disaster behaviour tendencies in some

municipalities. Information is incomplete, and

interpretation of different results obtained

through this source could generate confusion

and lead to mistaken interpretation.

The Climate Vulnerability and Capacity

Analysis (CVCA) developed by CARE is based

on a methodology to help understand the

implications of climate change for the lives

and livelihoods of the most vulnerable. By

combining local knowledge with scientific

data, the process builds people’s under-

standing about climate risks and adaptation

strategies. It provides a framework for

dialogue within communities, as well as

between communities and other stakeholders.

P a g e | 13

CVCA provides a framework for dialogue

within communities, as well as between

communities and other stakeholders. The

results provide a solid foundation for the

identification of practical strategies to

facilitate community-based adaptation to

climate change. Moreover, it provides detailed

guidance on using participatory tools in a

CVCA analysis. However, using CVCA it is not

possible to quantify vulnerability or provide

results that can be generalized to regional or

national levels.

Assessing Damage after Disasters: A

participatory Framework and Toolkit by the

Organisation for Development Education

(UNNATI) is a tool for field practitioners

working in post-disaster humanitarian

response. It provides a participatory and

vulnerability focused framework and tools to

carry out a multi-sectoral damage assessment.

By assessing psycho-social impacts of disasters

it covers an important aspect of non-economic

losses. However, the guide only suggests a

general overview and basic assessment tools

and methodologies that help align the process

of post disaster recovery with a community

empowerment perspective. It may not be

possible to classify all types of losses or

damages into categories discussed in this

guide assessment.

Climate change adaptation

Vulnerability assessment

The Climate Vulnerability Monitor developed

by DARA comprises 34 indicators of the

economic, human and ecological effects of

climate change and the carbon economy.

Indexes form the backbone of each indicator

and are responsible for generating the relative

level of vulnerability registered for each

country. Each index is determined exclusively

on the basis of mortality and/or GDP per

capita data, capturing only the climate change

or carbon economy effect in isolation from

other factors. It enables a comparison of

impacts on a per capita basis across countries

and combines estimations from expert and

scientific literature or models with bodies of

ecological, economic or societal data. It is

assumed that the impacts of climate change

and the carbon economy are already at play in

the world’s economic, environmental and

social systems. However, the emission

scenario chosen for most indicators is not the

highest available - numerous impacts are

simply beyond the analysis here for lack of

adequate reference studies or due to

methodological difficulties. The mainly near-

term monitor does not factor in the potential

costs of future large-scale abrupt impacts,

although a number of prominent economists

whose timeframes of analysis are more

extended advise otherwise. Moreover, the

monitor uses the equivalent of a direct-cost

approach for estimations, exploring impacts as

losses or gains to independent sectors or as

discrete gains/losses for those directly

affected. This does not take into consideration

the passing on of gains or losses elsewhere.

The Participatory Vulnerability and capacity

assessment (part of Participatory Assessment

of Disaster Risk (PADR) by British Overseas

NGOs for Development (BOND) and the

Tearfund is a tool for participatory assessment

of vulnerability on the local level by using

meetings with community leaders, focus

group meetings and informant interviews. The

assessment includes: 1.) Elements at Risk; 2.)

Unsafe Conditions; 3.) Dynamic Pressures and;

4.) Underlying causes. The assessment enables

causes as well as symptoms to be addressed.

Outcomes and plans based on this approach

are more sustainable as they are based on a

process of community mobilization and hence

are locally owned. However, the approach

might raise community expectations that

cannot be met. Moreover, the approach

requires a huge amount of time to streamline

P a g e | 14

the process and pre-gather available

information.

The Vulnerability Sourcebook by GIZ is a

standardized approach to vulnerability

assessments covering a broad range of sectors

and topics (e.g. water sector, agriculture,

fisheries, different ecosystems) as well as

different spatial levels (community, sub-

national, national) and time horizons (e.g.

current vulnerability or vulnerability in the

medium- to long-term). It offers step-by-step

guidance for designing and implementing a

vulnerability assessment which covers the

entire life cycle of adaptation interventions

and applies a mix of quantitative and

qualitative methods. However, not all

methods that are applied for quantifying

indicators are equally reliable. If users apply

participatory techniques or expert interviews,

they need to approach a representative

selection of stakeholders for the outcome to

be valuable for the approach.

Climate change adaptation assessment

Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) by

the Department for Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland analyses the key

risks and opportunities that changes to the

climate bring to the UK. Provides a baseline

that sets out how climate risks may manifest

themselves in the absence of current and

planned actions. The baseline of the CCRA

Evidence Report allows Government and

others to assess the extent to which our

actions and plans are climate resilient, and to

judge what more needs to be done. The

approach applies a mix of quantitative and

qualitative methods and provides a

comprehensive assessment due to the high

amount of sectors covered. Moreover, the

approach plans for a high degree of

stakeholder involvement. More than 700

climate risks were identified. From the outset

these were classified according to the

perceived magnitude of potential impacts,

level of confidence and ‘urgency of decisions.’

Scores were moderated by stakeholders,

including policy makers, as part of an

extensive participatory process. A more

detailed assessment of selected risks was able

to quantify some risks and gather expert

feedback on others. This provides an

improved evidence base on the consequences

of climate change, vulnerability of people and

places and the adaptive capacity of a sub-set

of sectors. Limitations arise due to limitations

of climate models used.

Climate change and Environmental

Degradation Risk and Adaptation Assessment

(CEDRA) developed by the Tearfund helps

agencies working in developing countries to

access and understand the science of climate

change and environmental degradation and

compare this with local community experience

of environmental change. Climate change

cannot be addressed in isolation from

environmental degradation as the two are

very closely inter-linked. CEDRA takes a risk

management approach to prioritizing hazards

to address. The approach offers step-by-step

guidance and helps local NGOs in developing

countries to work out whether their projects

are strong or need to be strengthened to cope

with the impacts of climate and

environmental change. However, experience

of working in development is essential, as well

as working experience in agriculture, water

and sanitation, construction and/or

community participatory approaches are

beneficial.

The Climate Risk Assessment Guide Central

Asia by UNDP guides a process to assess the

impacts and outcomes of climate - related

events on lives and livelihoods in Central Asia.

Procedures set out in the Guide provide

results that can be compared at the sub-

national level across Central Asia. However,

the guide requires subject matter experts (e.g.

P a g e | 15

meteorology, hydrology, geology, economics,

social science research, etc.). Moreover, it is

based on weak data on the impacts of climate

risks at the sub-national level. Community-

based participatory impact assessment

procedures can be used to address this

limitation although this reduces the detail of

the analytical process.

4. Gap analysis Analysing approaches to assess the risk of loss

and damages, several major gaps could be

identified. The most important gaps are listed

and described subsequently:

Assessment of non- economic losses

Most assessments focus on measuring

economic impacts, easy to quantify in

monetary terms. Non- economic losses such

as loss of human lives, cultural heritage, and

ecosystem services and social structures are

not adequately accounted for in these

assessment approaches (Surminski et al. 2012;

IPCC 2012). This is largely due to the difficulty

putting a market value or quantifying these

factors due to variation in human perception

and judgement of factors they considered

important. Subsequently, they are no

incorporated in these assessment processes.

However, their assessment would be

particularly important, as non-economic losses

"have the potential to fundamentally

undermine a communities' resilience"

(Morissey/Oliver-Smith 2013). Things might

get lost which help maintain cultural identity

and relations which are the basis for solving

problems cooperatively, being the "core

principle behind the concept of resilience"

(Morissey/Oliver-Smith 2013).

To identify their value, several methods are

available (e.g. contingent valuation, asking

people regarding their willingness to pay for

the things we want to assess the value of

(Adams 1996 in Wrathall et al. in press).

However, the quantification of these non-

economic losses poses conceptual, ethical and

empirical challenges, cultural resources being

particularly problematic regarding their

measuring as they contain multiple values. In

the final analysis following key questions

remains to be answered: "Can money

payments ever come close to addressing,

much less making good the true nature of the

loss?" (Wrathall et al. in press). Nevertheless

how can cultural identity and relations which

are the basis for solving problems

cooperatively, and the "core principle behind

the concept of resilience" (Morissey & Oliver-

Smith 2013) be valued?

Assessment of slow-onset changes

Current methods and tools for loss and

damage risk assessment are primarily focused

on extreme weather events. Being related to

the DRR framework, existing assessments

focus on one-of hazards or disasters.

Assessment methods and tools for slow-onset

events however, are hardly available. Even

less attention is paid to accumulated shocks

from extreme events and slow-onset changes.

For example, damage to mangrove forests

may affect breeding of fish species, which in

turn affects fish populations and availability of

fish for coastal fishing communities, in turn

local and perhaps regional nutrition is

affected. This could then affect human health

and raise demand for alternative food supplies

from agriculture, which in itself is under

climatic stress. The ripple effects of climate

change impacts has various parameters and

dimensions intricately linked and therefore

difficult to analyse due to cascading impacts.

Determining the limits to adaptation

The risk of loss and damage is directly related

to climate change adaptation, which has the

potential to prevent loss and damage to a

certain limit. However, none of the analysed

approaches considers the connection of loss

and damage and adaptation hence, none

P a g e | 16

offers a methodology to determine the limits

to adaptation.

Overall trends

Slow-onset changes, such as sea-level rise,

increasing temperatures, ocean acidification,

glacial retreat and related impacts, land and

forest degradation, loss of biodiversity,

salinization and desertification are processes

exacerbating threats already posed by

extreme events and seriously undermine

prospects for achieving sustainable

development. Permanent loss and damage

will go far beyond economic losses alone –

livelihoods will be lost, nation states and their

territory will have to be abandoned and

migrants from climate impacted lands will lose

their homes, culture and communities. Most

current assessment approaches are based on

the implicit assumption that society will stay

the same. However, trends like urbanization

have the power to greatly modify the

vulnerability of today's and future population.

But these trends are not adequately taken

into account in current risk assessment.

Lack of information

There are various information lacking in

relation to loss and damage assessment, the

most important ones being; (1) the lack of

hazard information meaning the availability of

observed climate data and climate

projections; (2) the lack of information when it

comes to assessment of economic losses.

According to Morrissey and Oliver-Smith

(2013), "if we don't know how many houses

exist in an informal settlement then we can't

know how many were destroyed in a flooding

event. If we don't know how many hours

people spend working in the informal

economy, then we can't work out the lost

value of that labour to increased work

exposure to water borne illness."(Morissey &

Oliver-Smith. 2013). If we have no idea how

much of something has been lost, the loss

assessment will be challenging.

From the above analysis there is an urgent

need to improve the understanding of the

characteristics of slow onset changes,

including the linkages with extreme weather

events, potential tipping points, the capacity

and skills needed for quantifying losses, and

what types of approaches are necessary

(Pinninti 2014). Such an improved

understanding would lead to raised awareness

of the magnitude of the loss and damage

resulting from incremental climatic processes,

especially among policymakers. It would also

facilitate a clarification of the necessary

enabling environment, such as regulatory

frameworks, policies and institutional

structures, which will provide implementation

space.

5. Conclusions The preceding stocktaking and analysis

revealed that there is a huge variety of

approaches to assess loss and damage

available within DRR and CCA. Existing

approaches have different limitations in the

context of loss and damage; in particular,

existing approaches have major gaps

regarding the assessment of non-economic

losses, slow-onset changes, determining the

limits of adaptation and the integration of

global trends. However, some approaches

offer distinct value with the potential to close

those gaps. Concluding, the paper present

approaches, worth taking a closer look at in

view of developing a comprehensive loss and

damage risk assessment methodology.

Limits of adaptation

Loss and damage goes far beyond economic

losses, however non-economic losses such as

loss of livelihood, territorial land and culture

poses conceptual, ethical and empirical

challenges. The World Risk Index has provided

broad scope of indicators (susceptibility,

coping capacities, adaptive capacity, and

exposure) that could act as baseline for

P a g e | 17

determining vulnerability parameters. This

could be expanded from the understanding

that there are limits to how far ecosystems

and human systems could adapt, given a

continued increase in disaster impact. The

methodology used in the World Risk Index

could be combined with participatory

approaches such as the Climate Vulnerability

and Capacity analysis by CARE to understand

the potential limits to adaptation on the local

level.

Non-economic losses

Cultural and territorial resources lost due to

hazard impacts are particularly problematic to

measure. This is largely due to the difficulty

putting a market value or quantifying these

factors due to variation in human perception

and judgement of factors they considered

important. However, we found approaches

taking at least important aspects of non-

economic losses into account. The Handbook

for Estimating the Socioeconomic and

Environmental Effects of Disasters allows a

very detailed assessment of loss and damage

in the social sector. Besides affected

population and damage to housing and

human settlement it offers methods for

estimating damage to education and culture

(the sector's infrastructure, equipment and

general functioning). Additionally, the

framework Assessing Damage after Disasters:

A participatory Framework and Toolkit by the

Organisation for Development Education

(UNNATI) provides a method to assess psycho-

social impacts of disasters, thereby covering

an important aspect of non-economic losses.

Slow-onset changes

Existing assessments focus on one-of hazards

or disasters. Assessment methods and tools

for slow-onset changes however, are hardly

available. Even less attention is paid to

accumulated shocks form extreme and slow-

onset events. However, considering slow-

onset changes in probabilistic assessments like

the Comprehensive Approach for

Probabilistic Risk Assessment by World Bank,

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB),

International Strategy of United Nations for

Disaster Reduction (ISDR) could provide a

possibility to assess the risk of loss and

damage arising from slow onset changes.

Overall trends

Most current assessment approaches are

based on the implicit assumption that society

will stay the same. However, as previously

stated trends like urbanization have the power

to greatly modify the vulnerability of today's

and future population. To take those trends

into account, one could broaden participatory

approaches (e.g. the Vulnerability

Sourcebook by GIZ or the Participatory

Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment by

BOND) to capture voices of local populations

on how their societies are slowly changing

(indigenous knowledge), and then considering

these changes as factors in the assessment

process.

This paper shows that there are approaches

that provide possibilities to close the

identified gaps. In view of developing a

comprehensive approach for loss and damage

risk assessment, the first step could be to

further explore the analysed approaches

above to make use of their distinct value,

taking into account identified challenges.

P a g e | 18

6. References

Literature used in the paper

Adger, W.N. et al. 2009: Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? In: Climate change.

93 (3-4), 335-354.

Asaduzzaman, M. et al. 2013: Assessing the Risk of Loss and Damage Associated with the Adverse

Effects of Climate Change in Bangladesh. Available at:

http://www.lossanddamage.net/download/7087.pdf [4.8.14].

Decision 1/CP. 16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on

Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. Bonn: UNFCCC Document

FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1.

O’Brien, K. 2009: Do values subjectively define the limits to climate change adaptation? Adapting to

Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, eds. W. Neil Adger, Irene Lorenzoni and

Karen L. O’Brien. Cambridge University Press 2009. Available:

http://www.sv.uio.no/iss/personer/vit/karenob/obrien_chapter10_values1.pdf

Dow, K. et al. 2013: Limits to adaptation to climate change: A risk approach. Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, 384-391.

Dow, K. & Berkhout, F. 2014: Climate Change, Limits to Adaptation and the ‘Loss and Damage’

Debate. E-international relations (13 March 2014). Available at: http://www.e-

ir.info/2014/03/13/climate-change-limits-to-adaptation-and-the-loss-and-damage-debate/

Fellmann, T. 2014. The assessment of climate change-related vulnerability in the agricultural sector:

reviewing conceptual frameworks. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3084e/i3084e04.pdf

[9.11.14].

Handmer et al. 2005: Towards a consistent approach to disaster loss assessment across Australia.

The Australian Journal of Emergency Management. 20 (1): 10-18.

Hoffmaister, H. & Stabinsky, D. 2012: Loss and Damage: Defining slow-onset events. Briefing Paper

on Loss and Damage. Available at:

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/briefings/bangkok04/Loss_and_damage_BP3.pdf

[28.8.2014].

Huggel, C. et al. 2013: Loss and damage attribution. In: Nature Climate Change. 3 (8), 694-696.

IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers, in M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden

and C.E. Hanson (eds), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22.

IPCC 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change

Adaptation. Available at: http://ipcc-g2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREXSPMbrochure_

FINAL.pdf [28.8.2014].

IPCC 2014: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

ISO/IEC 31010:2009: Risk management and Risk assessment techniques. Available at:

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51073 [28.8.2014].

P a g e | 19

Kelly C. 2008: Damage, needs or rights? – Defining what is required after disaster. Available at:

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/447325058FB382F8C12574B20048663

9-Benfield-Jul2008.pdf [28.8.2014].

Kreft, S. 2013: Getting loss and damage right in Warsaw. Available at:

http://www.lossanddamage.net/4942 [28.7.2014].

Morrissey, J. & Oliver-Smith, A. 2013: Perspectives on Non-Economic Loss and Damage. Available at:

http://www.lossanddamage.net/download/7213.pdf [4.8.2014].

O'Brien, G. et al. 2006: Climate change and disaster management. In: Disasters 30 (1), 64-80.

Pinninti, K. R. 2014: Climate Change Loss and Damage. Economic and legal foundation. Heidelberg:

Springer.

Siegele, L. 2012: Loss and Damage: The theme of slow-onset impact. Advance Version. Available at:

http://germanwatch.org/de/download/6674.pdf [27.8.2014].

Surminski, S., Lopez, A., Birkmann, J. and T. Welle (2012). Current knowledge on relevant

methodologies and data requirements as well as lessons learned and gaps identified at

different levels, in assessing the risk of loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of

climate change [online]. Available at: unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/tp/01.pdf [27.8.2014].

Thieken, A. et al. 2008: Methods for the evaluation of direct and indirect flood losses. Available at:

http://gfzpublic.gfz-

potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:6063:12/component/escidoc:6064/98_Thieken.pdf

{28.8.2014].

UNFCCC 2004: Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, vulnerability and

adaptation to climate change. Available at:

http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/nairobi_workprogramme/compendium_on_methods_tools/

application/pdf/20080307_compendium_m_t_complete.pdf [28.8.2014].

UNFCCC 2010: An overview from the Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and

adaptation to climate change. Available at:

https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342deP/1443/wpcontent/uploads/filebase/va/vulnerability

-guides-manuals-

reports/an_overview_from_the_nairobi_work_programme_on_impacts,_vulnerability_and_a

daptation_to_climate_change.pdf [28.8.2014].

UNFCCC 2012a: Current knowledge on relevant methodologies and data requirements as well as

lessons learned and gaps identified at different levels, in assessing the risk of loss and damage

associated with the adverse effects of climate change. Available at:

http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/cancun_adaptation_framework/loss_and_damage/applicati

on/pdf/background_paper_full.pdf [28.8.2014].

UNFCCC 2012b: Report on the regional expert meetings on a range of approaches to address loss and

damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including impacts related to

extreme weather events and slow-onset events. Bonn: UNFCCC Report FCCC/SBI/ 2012/29.

UNFCCC 2012c: Report on the expert meeting on assessing the risk of loss and damage associated

with the adverse effects of climate change. Bonn: UNFCCC Document FCCC/SBI/2012/INF.3.

UNFCCC 2012d: Slow-onset events. Technical paper. Bonn: UNFCCC Document FCCC/TP/2012/7.

P a g e | 20

UNFCCC 201e: A literature review on the topics in the context of thematic area 2 of the work

programme on loss and damage: a range of approaches to address loss and damage associated

with the adverse effects of climate change. Bonn: UNFCC Document FCCC/SBI/2012/INF.14.

UNISDR 2004: Living with risk. A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. Available at:

http://www.unisdr.org/files/657_lwr1.pdf [28.8.2014].

Verheyen, R. 2012: Tackling Loss & Damage – A new role for the climate regime? Available at:

http://www.lossanddamage.net/download/6877.pdf [28.8.2014].

Warner, K. & van der Geest, K. 2013: Loss and damage from climate change: local–level evidence

from nine vulnerable countries. In: International Journal of Global Warming, 5 (4), 367-386.

Warner, K. & Zakieldeen, S. A. 2012: Loss and Damage due to climate change. An overview of the

UNFCCC negotiations. Available at:

http://www.climateinsurance.org/upload/pdf/20120220_Loss_and_Damage_in_UNFCCC_war

ner_zakieldeen.pdf [26.8.2014].

Wrathall, D. J. et al. in press: Problematizing loss and damage. In: International Journal of Global

Warming.

Additional literature used for the stocktaking

ADPC (Asian Disaster Preparedness Center) 2006: Critical Guidelines of Community based Disaster

Risk Management. Available at:

http://www.humanitarianforum.org/data/files/resources/759/en/C2-ADPC_communitybased-

disaster-risk-managementv6.pdf [28.8.2014].

Bollin, C. 2003: Community-based disaster risk management approach. Available at:

http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-community-based-drm.pdf [28.8.2014].

Birkmann, J. et al. 2011: Adaptive Disaster Risk Reduction: Enhancing Methods and Tools of Disaster

Risk Reduction in the light of Climate Change. Bonn: DKKV.

Birkmann, J. et al. 2011: World Risk Index: Available at: http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/9018

[28.8.2014].

British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND) / Tearfund 2005: Participatory assessment of

disaster risks. Available at:

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=8678 [28.8.2014].

CARE 2009: Handbook. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analyses. Available at

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/CARE_CVCAHandbook.pdf [28.8.2014].

Cardona, O.D. 2007: Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management. Available at:

http://www.iadb.org/exr/disaster/IDEA_IndicatorsReport.pdf?language=EN&parid=6

[28.8.2014].Cardona, O.D. et al. 2012: CAPRA - Comprehensive Approach to Probabilistic Risk

Assessment: International Initiative for Risk Management Effectiveness. Available at:

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_0726.pdf [28.8.2014].

DARA and the Climate Vulnerable Forum 2012: Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2nd edition. Available

at: http://www.daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CVM2-Low.pdf [28.8.2014].

De Bruin K. et al. 2009: Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change: Integrated Assessment

Modelling of Adaptation Costs and Benefits. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/225282538105 [28.8.2014].

P a g e | 21

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 2010: Method for undertaking the

CCRA Part II – Detailed Method for Stage 3: Assess Risk. Available at:

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=GA0204_9587_TRP.pdf [28.8.2014].

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2012: The UK Climate Change Risk

Assessment 2012 Evidence Report. Available at:

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=TheUKCCRA2012EvidenceReport.pdf

[29.8.2014].

Dilley, M. et al. 2005: Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis. Washington D.C.: World

Bank.

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) 2003: Handbook for Estimating

the Socio-economic and Environmental Effects of Disasters. Available at:

http://www.eclac.cl/cgibin/getProd.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/4/12774/P12774.xml&xsl=/

mexico/tpli/p9f.xsl&base=/mexico/tpl/top-bottom.xslt [28.8.2014].

Emergency Management Australia 2002: Disaster Loss Assessment Guidelines. Available at:

http://www.em.gov.au/Documents/Manual27-DisasterLossAssessmentGuidelines.pdf

[28.8.2014].

GIZ 2010: Climate proofing for development. Adapting to Climate Change, Reducing Risks. Available

at: https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342deP/1443/wp-

content/uploads/filebase/ms/mainstreaming-guides-manuals-reports/gtz-climateproofing-td-

2010-en%282%29.pdf [28.8.2014].

GIZ 2014: The Vulnerability Sourcebook. Available at:

https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342deP/1443/wp-

content/uploads/filebase/va/vulnerability-guides-manuals-

reports/Vulnerability_Sourcebook_-_Guidelines_for_Assessments_-_GIZ_2014.pdf

[28.8.2014].

Hammill, A. & Tanner T. 2011: Harmonising Climate Risk Management: Adaptation Screening and

Assessment Tools for Development Co-operation. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg706918zvl-en [28.8.2014].

Harmeling, S. & Eckstein, D. 2012: Global climate risk index 2013: Who suffers most from extreme

weather events? Weather-related Events in 2011 and 1992 to 2011. Bonn: Germanwatch.

Hochrainer, S. 2006. Macroeconomic risk management against natural disasters. Wiesbaden:

Deutscher Universitaets Verlag.

International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red

Crescent Societies 2008: Guidelines for assessment in emergencies. Available at:

http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/guidelines/guidelines-for-emergencyen.pdf

[28.8.2014].

IPCC 2007: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2

_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm [28.8.2014].

Laugé, A., Hernantes, J. and Sarriegi, J. 2013. Disaster Impact Assessment: A Holistic Framework.

Proceedings of the 10th International ISCRAM Conference – Baden-Baden, Germany, May

2013. Available at: http://www.iscramlive.org/ISCRAM2013/files/225.pdf.

P a g e | 22

Mechler, R. et al. 2006: Assessing Financial Vulnerability and Coping Capacity: The IIASA CATSIM

Model. In: Birkmann, J. (ed.): Measuring Vulnerability and Coping Capacity to Hazards of

Natural Origin. Concepts and Methods. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 380-398.

Mechler R. 2010: Assessing the Financial Vulnerability to Climate-Related Natural Hazards. Available

at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/12998_WPS5232.pdf [28.8.2014].

OECD 2012: Disaster risk assessment and disaster risk financing. A G20/OECD methodological

framework Paris: OECD.

Oreskes N. et al. 2010: Adaptation to Global Warming: Do Climate Models Tell Us What We Need to

Know? Philosophy of Science. 77(5), 1012–1028.

Ortiz, R. & Markandya, A. 2009: Integrated impact assessment models of climate change with an

emphasis on damage functions: a Literature Review. Bilbao: Spain.

Peduzzi, P. et al. 2009: Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the

Disaster Risk Index. In: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, 1149-1159.

Pinninti, K. R. 2014. Economic and Legal Foundations. Springer Briefs in Climate Studies: VIII, 50 p.

Available at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/9783642395635-c2.pdf [28.8.2014].

Shaw, R. et al. 2012: Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction: Issues and Challenges.

Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Stanton, E. et al. 2008: Inside the Integrated Assessment Models: Four Issues in Climate Economics.

Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.

UNDP 2002: Climate Risk Management Approach to Disaster Reduction and Adaptation to Climate

Change. Available at: http://ccsl.iccip.net/riskadaptationintegrated.pdf [28.8.2014].

UNISDR 2011: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Available at:

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/home/download.html

[28.8.2014].

UNISDR 2013:Global assessment report. From shared risk to shared value: The business case for

disaster risk reduction. Geneva: UNISDR.

UNNATI 2007: Assessing damages after disasters. A participatory framework and toolkit. Available at:

http://www.unnati.org/pdfs/books/damage_assessment_toolkit.pdf [28.8.2014].

Wilkinson, E. & Brenes, A. 2014: Risk-informed decision-making: An agenda for improving risk

assessments under HFA2. Available at: http://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CDKN-

Guide_RiskAssessment_FINAL320-05-14_WEB.pdf [28.8.2014].

P a g e | 23

Appendix: Stocktaking of climate risk assessment approaches The tables on the following pages list selected climate risk assessment approaches within the fields

of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). Based on a desk-top study the

approaches are analysed regarding their advantages and disadvantages for loss and damage risk

assessment.

The approaches are categorized as follows:

1. Disaster risk reduction

1.1. Comprehensive impact and risk assessment

1.2. Pre-disaster risk assessment

1.3. Post-disaster risk assessment

2. Climate change adaptation

2.1. Vulnerability assessment

2.2. Climate change adaptation assessment

P a g e | 24

A.1 Disaster risk reduction

A.1.1 Comprehensive impact and risk assessments

Examples Organisation Concrete Output Level Advantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment Disadvantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment

Natural disaster HotSpot

WB Estimation of risk levels by combining hazard exposure with historical vulnerability.

Global Adequate for identifying areas that are at relatively higher single- or multiple-hazard risk.

Data are inadequate for understanding the absolute levels of risk posed by any specific hazard or combination of hazards.

Analysis is limited by issues of scale as well as by the availability and quality of data (e.g. data on historical disaster losses, and particularly on economic losses).

World Risk Index UNU-EHS Indicates a level of exposure and vulnerability to extreme events tool to assess the disaster risk that a society or country is exposed to by external and internal factors.

Global Effort to adequately represent social risk factors, although data is not yet available on global level.

Detailed indicator list for exposure, susceptibility, coping capacity, adaptive capacity allow very good measurement of vulnerability.

Applicability of method on regional and local level.

Global data for exposure based on model calculations - uncertainty within the model.

Global Climate Risk Index

Germanwatch Determines the risk of becoming the victim of a disaster as a result of natural hazards for 173 countries throughout the world.

Global Exclusive focus on climate change related hazards.

As index is based on the average values of included years, the differentiation between countries continuously affected by extreme events and those that only rank high due to exceptional catastrophes is difficult.

Approach does not allow exact measurement of vulnerability.

Does not allow for an assessment of continuous changes of important climate parameters.

P a g e | 25

A.1.2 Pre-disaster risk assessment

Examples Organisation Concrete Output Level Advantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment Disadvantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment

Comprehensive Approach for Probabilistic Risk Assessment

World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), International Strategy of United Nations for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)

CAPRA is a techno-scientific methodology and information platform, composed of tools for the evaluation and communication of risk at various territorial levels. This model allows the evaluation of probabilistic losses on exposed elements using probabilistic metrics, such as the exceedance probability curve, expected annual loss and probable maximum loss, useful for multi-hazard/risk analyses.

National Using CAPRA it is possible to design risk transfer instruments and the evaluation of probabilistic cost-benefit ratio.

Useful for loss scenarios for emergency response and on-line loss assessment mechanisms.

Relies on a combination of point values, some conservative and some typical yielding a point estimate of exposure that is at some unknown point in the range.

Difficult to incorporate new or alternate data into the model setup. Especially the integration of new hazards or damage algorithms with respect to climate change is a complex issue.

Catastrophe Simulation model (CATSIM)

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Helps policymakers, particularly in developing countries, devise public financing strategies to be implemented in both the pre- and post-disaster context. National data can be input into CATSIM allowing policy advisers to pose "what if" questions. The model will then show the best combination of financial strategies to suit current national circumstances.

National Easy-to-use graphical interface that allows the user to define parameters for hazards, vulnerability, and elements exposed.

User can change parameters and assumptions to show the appropriate financial strategies in the given circumstances.

Handbook for Estimating the Socioeconomic and Environmental Effects of Disasters (also for post-disaster)

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)

Describes the methods required to assess the social, economic and environmental effects of disasters, breaking them down into direct damage and indirect losses and into overall and macroeconomic effects.

National, regional

Provides the means to identify the most affected social, economic and environmental sectors and geographic regions, and therefore those that require priority attention in reconstruction.

Allows to addresses important aspects of non-economic losses within the assessment.

degree of detail of damage and loss assessment that can be achieved by applying the Handbook depends on the availability of quantitative information in the country or region affected.

Community based disaster risk management (also for post-disaster)

e.g. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

Training manual for the inclusion of local actors in application of measures in risk analysis, disaster prevention and mitigation and disaster preparedness.

Local Outcomes and plans based on this approach are more sustainable as they are based on a process of community mobilization and hence are locally owned.

Raises community expectations; should be part

of ongoing process with community.

Time required -streamline process; pre-

gathering of available information.

Dependent on good facilitation skills.

P a g e | 26

A.1.3 Post-disaster risk assessment

Examples Organisation Concrete Output Advantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment Disadvantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment

Disaster Loss Assessment Guidelines

Emergency Management Australia

Provide an explanation of the process of loss assessment, and lead the reader through the steps required to carry out an economic assessment of disaster losses.

National Helps to estimate the average annual damages (AAD) from a hazard such as flooding at a specified location, probably as an input to cost-benefit analysis.

Step-by-step assessment process.

Much of the supporting material is generic and can be applied to all hazards.

Although this document sets out the steps to be followed in making a real loss assessment, the process is complex and requires some specialist expertise.

Desinventar

(also pre-disaster)

Corporacion OSSO, La Red, UNISDR

Conceptual and methodological tool for the construction of databases of loss, damage, or effects caused by emergencies or disasters.

National, regional, local

Climate change factors may be easily incorporated into the assessment as within Desinventar disasters are considered as all losses stemming from impacts of phenomena with are natural, technological or anthropological in origin.

Socio-cultural effects included in assessment (regarding infrastructure).

Proofed to be unreliable for estimation of natural disaster behaviour tendencies in some municipalities. Information is incomplete, and interpretation of different results obtained through this source could generate confusion and lead to mistaken interpretation.

Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA)

CARE Methodology to help understand the implications of climate change for the lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable. By combining local knowledge with scientific data, the process builds people’s under-standing about climate risks and adaptation strategies. It provides a framework for dialogue within communities, as well as between communities and other stakeholders.

Local Provides a framework for dialogue within communities, as well as between communities and other stakeholders. The results provide a solid foundation for the identification of practical strategies to facilitate community-based adaptation to climate change.

Detailed guidance on using participatory tools in a CVCA analysis.

Not possible to quantify vulnerability or provide results that can be generalized to regional or national levels.

Assessing Damage after Disasters: A participatory Framework and Toolkit

Organisation for Development Education (UNNATI)

Tool for field practitioners working in post-disaster humanitarian response, a participatory and vulnerability focused framework and appropriate effective tools to carry out the multi -sectoral damage assessment.

Local Includes the assessment of psycho-social impacts of disasters as important aspect of non-economic losses.

Only suggests a general overview and basic assessment tools and methodologies that help align the process of post disaster recovery with a community empowerment perspective. It may not be possible to classify all types of losses or damages into categories discussed in this guide.

P a g e | 27

A.2 Climate Change Adaptation

A.2.1 Vulnerability assessment

Examples Organisation Concrete Output Level Advantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment Disadvantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment

Climate Vulnerability Monitor

DARA The Monitor comprises 34 indicators of the economic, human and ecological effects of climate change and the carbon economy. Indexes form the backbone of each indicator and are responsible for generating the relative level of vulnerability registered for each country. Each index is determined exclusively on the basis of mortality and/or GDP per capita data, capturing only the climate change or carbon economy effect in isolation from other factors.

National Enables a comparison of impacts on a per capita basis across countries.

Combines estimations from expert and scientific literature or models with bodies of ecological, economic or societal data. It is assumed that the impacts of climate change and the carbon economy are already at play in the world’s economic, environmental and social systems.

The emission scenario chosen for most indicators is not the highest available - numerous impacts are simply beyond the analysis here for lack of adequate reference studies or due to methodological difficulties.

The study uses the equivalent of a direct-cost approach for estimations, exploring impacts as losses or gains to independent sectors or as discrete gains/losses for those directly affected. This does not take into consideration the passing on of gains or losses elsewhere.

Participatory Vulnerability and capacity assessment (part of Participatory Assessment of Disaster Risk (PADR)

British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND); Tearfund

Tool for participatory assessment of vulnerability on the local level by using meetings with community leaders, focus group meetings and informant interviews. The assessment includes: 1.Elements at Risk, 2. Unsafe Conditions, 3. Dynamic Pressures and 4. Underlying causes.

Local Outcomes and plans based on this approach are more sustainable as they are based on a process of community mobilization and hence are locally owned.

Raises community expectations; should be part of ongoing process with community.

Time required -streamline process; pre-gathering of available information.

Dependent on good facilitation skills.

The vulnerability sourcebook

GIZ Standardised approach to vulnerability assessments covering a broad range of sectors and topics (e.g. water sector, agriculture, fisheries, different ecosystems) as well as different spatial levels (community, sub-national, national) and time horizons (e.g. current vulnerability or vulnerability in the medium- to long-term).

National, regional, local

Offers step-by-step guidance for designing and implementing a vulnerability assessment which covers the entire life cycle of adaptation interventions.

Mix of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Not all methods that are applied for quantifying indicators are equally reliable. If users apply participatory techniques or expert interviews, they need to approach a representative selection of stakeholders for the outcome to be valuable for the approach.

P a g e | 28

A.2.2 Climate change adaptation assessment

Examples Organisation Concrete Output Level Advantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment Disadvantages for Loss and Damage Risk Assessment

Climate Change Risk Assessment

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Analyses the key risks and opportunities that changes to the climate bring to the UK. Provides a baseline that sets out how climate risks may manifest themselves in the absence of current and planned actions. The baseline of the CCRA Evidence Report allows Government and others to assess the extent to which our actions and plans are climate resilient, and to judge what more needs to be done.

National Focus on climate change.

Mix of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Comprehensive assessment due to the high amount of sectors covered.

High degree of stakeholder involvement.

Improved evidence base on the consequences of climate change, vulnerability of people and places and the adaptive capacity of sectors by consideration of more than 700 climate risks.

Limitations due to limitations of climate models used.

Climate change and Environmental Degradation Risk and Adaptation Assessment (CEDRA)

Tearfund CEDRA helps agencies working in developing countries to access and understand the science of climate change and environmental degradation and compare this with local community experience of environmental change. Climate change cannot be addressed in isolation from environmental degradation as the two are very closely inter-linked. CEDRA takes a risk management approach to prioritizing hazards to address.

Local Offers step-by-step guidance.

Helps local NGOs in developing countries to work out whether their projects are strong or need to be strengthened to cope with the impacts of climate and environmental change.

Experience of working in development is essential, and experience working in agriculture, water and sanitation, construction and/or community participatory approaches are beneficial.

Climate Risk Assessment Guide

UNDP Process to assess the impacts and outcomes of climate - related events on lives and livelihoods in Central Asia.

Regional Procedures set out in the guide provide results that can be compared at the sub-national level across Central Asia.

Requires subject matter experts (e.g.,meteorology, hydrology, geology, economics,social science research, etc.).

Weak data on the impacts of climate risks at sub-national level. Community-based participatory impact assessment procedures can be used to address this limitation although this reduces the detail of the analytical process.

Losses and damages from climate-related stressors have increased dramatically over the past decades. The most recent scientific projections anticipate a significant increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and increasingly adverse slow-onset changes associated with global warming. These pose a growing risk to human well-being and sustainable development, especially in developing countries.

The emerging topic of ‘loss and damage’ has taken on increasing significance in the climate negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), especially since the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP-19) and the establishment of the ‘Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage Associated with Climate Change Impacts’ in 2013. It is expected that there will be greater emphasis on adaptation and loss and damage in the new climate agreement that is to be negotiated in 2015.

The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) is at the forefront of developing and imple-menting comprehensive climate risk management approaches to support countries and people in their efforts to minimize loss and damage. To inform their work in developing countries, GIZ invited the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) to conduct a stocktaking of climate risk assessment approaches related to loss and damage. The results are presented in this UNU-EHS Working Paper. .